‘No one likes us, we don’t care” is a football chant which originated with the supporters of Millwall Football Club in the late seventies.

The song was originally sung by Millwall fans in response to the sustained criticism of their behaviour by the press and the image of many Millwall fans as hooligans, perpetuated by certain sections of the media.

There can be no doubt that such a chant reflects how Millwall supporters were bound together by a common sense of allegiance against a common foe.

By creating a common enemy we are provided with a sense of belonging to something. It’s this notion of allegiance towards a common enemy that I’d like to explore in this post.

The definition of Allegiance reads as follows:

  1. Loyalty or the obligation of loyalty, as to a nation, sovereign, or cause.
  2. The obligations of a vassal to a lord

A bit of research into allegiance led me to a new word for me ‘Communalism’:

  1. Belief in or practice of communal ownership, as of goods and property.
  2. Strong devotion to the interests of one’s own minority or ethnic group rather than those of society as a whole.

It’s the second of these definitions – which interests me.

Throughout history there have been innumerable leaders at all levels in use “communalism” as a key feature of their leadership strategy – “it’s us against them”.

By focusing the attention of those whom they lead upon the “dark forces” who exist beyond their ‘world’, attention is diverted from some of the fundamental leadership weaknesses and flawed thinking, which might have been apparent if the ‘team’ were not bound together against the common enemy.

The dark forces/common enemy can take many forms – nationality, ethnicity, religion, political affinity, competitors, media, etc, etc, etc. The common characteristic of all those groups is that they can be described by the protaganist as “them” – whereas the team is “us”.

The reality is that this strategy can be useful in gaining support, pulling people together and in enabling the team to create a common sense of purpose that will sustain them through difficult times. However, the consequence of such a strategy is that it destroys any possibility of collaborative work – which makes the most of everyone’s potential – as long as the team is successful in their narrow terms – then the well-being of broader society is not their concern.

I’d like to argue that “Allegiance” Leadership is ultimately lazy leadership and if allowed to continue only serves to undermine the long term sustainability of any organisation.